Why don't people give Tate his props?
I mean seriously look at his video. He outruns defensive backs and takes it to the house. He looks pretty fast. Not an absolute burner but more than fast enough. He's got good burst and good vision. He runs a 4.55 according to Rivals.
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=89569&draftyear…
http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?Sport=1&pr_key=55584
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCENpiGgsN8
Give props when due! Dude is fast! Period. Tate is the future of Michigan. His arm is just too good.
Didn't we just get done with an entire thread with you arguing this point? Now you're doing it again?
He's fast. Good for him. Good for us, since he's at Michigan. We all want him to succeed. He will run better than the 2008 QBs. Still, he's not as fast as Denard Robinson, no matter how many times you post about it.
I don't know what you beating this dead horse about Tate's speed will gain us in evaluating him as the probable 2009 starter.
Why don't we wait until he's actually had a chance to play a little at the D1 level first? At this point, his HS exploits don't mean a lot, other than to indicate potential. Look at the hoopla that surrounded McGuffie's videos... Sam did fine for a freshman, but his performance was a far cry from what a lot of people—myself included—got caught up in assuming he would do right out of the gate. I'm going to reserve props for actual in-game achievement.
McGuffie did just fine on the worst team in D1 football last year. Michigan was the worst team in D1 football last year. Well pretty damn close. Thats a whole different story. But seriously, let's not talk about D1 Big Ten football like it is god. We have the biggest joke of a schedule right now. I just don't get it. We get awesome recruits and we go 3-9. I know it was a rebuilding year but come on. Toledo? USC has "rebuilding" years and they would never lose to a fucking MAC school. They go to the rose bowl every year. And the PAC 10 is certainly up there with the BIG TEN, oh scary. But I am getting off topic. Yes we should wait, but it seems people are talking about an 10.44 100 meter over a 77 percent completion percentage and a QB that enrolled early to take our school back to ELITE status.
No, they lose to Stanford. And UCLA. And Oregon St.
Yes, the year they lost to Stanford, Stanford was worse than App St. People just remember App St. because they are an FCS school, but they would have smoked Stanford that year. Not to mention Stanford was a lot better than Michigan.
UCLA and Stanford suck? They actually used to be pretty awesome programs. At least they arn't a fucking MAC school. Plus USC puts up outrageous numbers and actually play a non-conference BCS school besides Shitty Dame.
Geez. To which MAC school(s) did you not get accepted?
Stanford is horrible. We used to be good, too. That doesn't really mean a lot for our terribleness now.
In this paragraph:
-McGuffie
-Michigan as worst DI football team last year
-DI Big Ten football
-God
-Michigan's schedule
-The Toledo loss
-Michigan's recruiting
-USC
-Pac Ten vs. Big Ten
-QB statistics
For some reason, I find this wildly entertaining.
Talented athletes like Tate Forcier (and others) are generally faster than opposing players. At the school where I used to work, we had a quarterback who outran a ton of DB's through his four years as a starter. He was 6'4" and 210 pounds.
Now he's a linebacker at an ACC school.
Just because he outran high school DB's doesn't mean he's going to be as successful as Pat White running the ball.
Also, as someone pointed out yesterday, the San Diego area is not exactly a football hotbed. If Robinson outruns the competition, I'd put more stock in that than Forcier outrunning his competition.
But a 4.55 is a 4.55. I mean like San Diego can't be that bad of a football area. Somebody good has to of come out of that area. They have too many people not to have talent. But I get what you are saying. Just some people that think that the South has do much more speed. Even tough one of our fastest guys came out of PA, Je'ron Stokes. So if I go to the South I magicly get faster?
If I say this enough times, maybe you'll understand.
Pat White ran a 4.55 at the NFL Combine and was the fastest quarterback.
There is a MINUSCULE chance that Tate Forcier is just as fast as Pat White, since Pat White is very fast, is the all-time leading rusher for quarterbacks, and he's been in a major college strength and conditioning program - and preparing for the draft.
High school 40 times are fudged. They're fake. If a recruit says he runs a 4.55, he probably runs a 4.65 or a 4.7. You can't treat Rivals like it's gospel.
I am beginning to believe that this guy is a troll. Don't feed the troll.
Rivals isn't always wrong. So by that Denard Robinson who runs a 4.48 on Rivals prolly runs a 4.58 or 4.68? Doubt it. It doesn't take an 150 IQ to guess how fast someone is. You just won't give Tate 4.55 Forcier props. Def runs a legit 4.5. That NFL site even has it as an 4.57.
How is a 4.55 a legit 4.5?
What are you smoking dude? 4.5 is a 4.50-4.59. Check the NFL site dude. 4.57 is about right for Tate.
And he's going to start in the fall. And he'll run and be quick. Now what are you going to argue about?
The Diesel.
Why don't you stop nitpicking and just answer the question. So if Rivals beefed up Tate's 40. They certainly must of beefed up Denard's 40 too right?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The first time you said it, I disagreed.
The second time you said it, I just thought you were crazy.
The third time you said it, I still thought you were crazy.
The fourth time you said it, I thought you were certifiably insane.
The fifth time you said it, I thought you were an elaborate April Fool's Day prank.
The sixth time you said it, I just sat in disbelief that you could keep going on and on about it.
The seventh time you said it, you almost convinced me.
The eighth time you said it, you lost me.
The ninth time you said it, I was busy with something else. Sorry.
The tenth time you said it, I broke my computer while banging my head against it.
The eleventh time you said it, I was at the library because my computer was broken.
The twelfth time you said it, I had my computer back and I was almost convinced.
The thirteenth time you said it, you lost me again, because I had a headache from banging it against the computer earlier.
The fourteenth through twenty-third times, I just stared blankly at the screen.
And now here we are at the twenty-fourth time you've advanced the exact same tired old argument that no one really seems to care about or agree with, except you. And now me. You've got me convinced. Tate is a quarterback.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:53 PM ^
Thanks, that was really funny.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^
+1
That made me smile amid the stupidity.
Get over it. It is just the spring. We just don't know how it will unfold. All we know is that we hope that you are right and Tate brings the program back to power. Robinson will find his way to the field regardless with that speed!
I don't understand why you are getting a hard on over that "speed". He doesn't even run a legit 4.3. His 40 yard isn't nearly as hot as his 100 meter is. We have tons of guys that are just as fast as Denard. Terrence Robinson just to name one. Je'ron Stokes. Since people used to say McGuffie was too small I will make the comment about Vincent Smith who is hella fast.
Any evidence to back up these claims? Or did you recently see them all run a foot race against each other? To me, it looks like you're just making that up. Everything I've read points to Denard being anywhere from somewhat to quite a bit faster than all the guys you mentioned.
Wow. Are you joking? Terrence Robinson is fast as fuck! So is Stokes. Wow. When a site like Rivals is wrong it because they rate their 40 too low. Not too high. A 4.48 is hella fast. But it isn't Randy Moss fast or Reggie Bush.
You're right.
I mean honestly. Why would a site give someone a higher 40 then what they really run? They almost always beef them up not downgrade them.
You're right.
but the fastest 100 time Stokes has ran was a 10.8. In other words, he's hella fast but is still slower than Denard.
Seriously, even if they beef those times up, I doubt they are far off at all. Probably .1 second at the most. I ran a 4.6-4.7 in high school, and I didn't even play a varsity sport...
You probably didn't.
are correct. if the OP ran that it was hand-timed/somebody lied to him.
Well, we don't know anything about that kid, but I agree with you that it's more than likely false. Or he should have played varsity sports.
I has FAT timed multiple times in the 4.5 range, but I was a varsity football player and an all-state sprinter, and I trained year round. I can't imagine a kid who did not play a varsity sport to be within a tenth of me.
I still worked out and ran a lot though. I played a year of JV bball. I was a short, speedy kid :D
Congratulations.
I have no doubt that you ran a 4.8 or 4.9. There's no shame in that. It's okay. We can't all be elite athletes.
Seriously though, I've only been able to run about a 5.0 or 5.1...Of course, I was a distance runner (Mile time 4:46 wooo) so i shouldn't be able to run sprints fast anyways.
FAKE mile time!! just kidding :)
up to 4:47?? lol
Swear on my life. The bball coach was timing us each individually. (I didn't make the team, but I was still pretty fast) The fastest I got was 4.66. My shuttle run was 8.81 too. Swear. I can't prove it, don't have any pictures or anything, but I did.
So you were HAND-TIMED by a BASKETBALL COACH, someone who probably has very little experience in timing forties.
Sounds like a legitimate time to me. They should probably use that guy instead of those "lasers" and "sensors" and other shitty equipment found at the NFL Combine.
Add 0.24 seconds to convert from hand-time to electronic and you've got yourself a 4.9...a much more believable number
STOP IT.
Who cares if Tate or Denard is faster? One of them will be QB! What's the end game of this straw man that you're arguing against? We all agree that a 4.55 is fast, even though it's probably mythical.
Honestly, what are you trying to prove? You keep arguing the same thing.
And while I'm at it, if North Texas was in D-1 last year, and it was, Michigan wasn't the worst team in D-1. Or have you also forgotten about Washington, Washington State, and Indiana to quickly name a few?
And also, while I'm at it, your spelling and grammar are nauseating to read. It makes it very difficult to take you seriously when you're breaking out "could of"'s and "magicly"s.
Going to the grammar now are we? That is typical when people run out of things to say. We are on a message board not school. JESUS CHRIST.
when trying to prove you're smarter than everyone else, good grammar might be a prerequisite.
"We are on a message board, not school."
So is grammar only important in school? Why do you learn grammar in school, just 'cause? So you can forget it as soon as the bell rings? Schools teach grammar so that when you write in the real world, you can do so correctly. Not only does your grammar make it difficult to read many of your sentences, it tells me you are unintelligent which kills any shred of credibility you may have had. Excuse me, any credibility you may of had.
I hope we're not "on" school. I'm afraid of heights.
Not the least because I'm afraid of heights too.
Considering how good Michigan's recruit are. It is pretty stupid not to call Michigan the worst D1 team last year. Hell if it wasn't for Barwis they wouldn't of won Wisconsin. They were dead last in everything.